Mumbai, Maharashtra – June 14, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has granted bail to Anil Hanumanta Shelte, accused in an attempted murder and assault case. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Vishal S. Gaike, granted bail citing the lack of prima facie evidence to support the charge of attempted murder and the completion of substantial investigation.

Shelte was arrested in connection with Crime No. 91 of 2022, registered at Shahu Nagar Police Station, under sections 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons¹ or means), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation),² 143 (unlawful assembly), 145 (joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse), 147 (rioting),³ and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal⁴ Code (IPC), as well as Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, and Section 4 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on April 6, 2022, Shelte, along with other co-accused, assaulted the complainant and his friends with sickles, wooden stumps, and iron pipes, causing grievous injury to one Isai Balan. The charge of attempted murder (Section 307 IPC) was added based on a later statement by the complainant.

During the bail hearing, Shelte’s advocate, Mr. S. Kanagaraj, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC were not attracted, as there was no prima facie material to show an intention to kill. He pointed out that no weapon was attributed to Shelte in the First Information Report (FIR) and that the investigation was nearly complete.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. A.P.P. Mr. J.N. Suryawanshi, vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that the investigation was ongoing, and Shelte was a habitual offender who might commit further offenses.

The complainant, through his intervener advocate Mr. Asif Latif Shaikh, also opposed the bail application.

Judge Gaike, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, noted that the medical report of the victim showed one grievous injury and eight simple injuries. The court also observed that the FIR indicated a sudden fight between two groups.

“The contents of the F.I.R. reflects that there was sudden fight between two groups in which the victim may have sustained the alleged injuries. The name of applicant is appearing in the F.I.R., but the sickle injury is not attributed to him. From the contents of F.I.R., prima facie, ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted,” Judge Gaike stated in the order.

The court highlighted that the charge of attempted murder was based on an additional statement recorded three days after the incident and that substantial investigation had been completed. The court also noted that the victim had been discharged from the hospital in April.

“The contents of case diary reflects that substantial investigation has been completed. Admittedly, the victim is discharged from the Hospital in the month of April itself. The criminal antecedents of the applicant are alleged by the investigating agency. But, no details of it are given in the say of the Investigating Officer. The applicant is a young boy of 20 years of age. Their appears no prima facie possibility that he would flee away from justice or commit similar offence,” Judge Gaike stated.

The court granted bail to Shelte on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:

• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
• He must furnish his detailed address, mobile/contact number, address proof, and identity proof.
• He must inform the court and Investigating Officer of any change in his residence or mobile/contact number.
• He must attend court regularly.
• He must not leave the jurisdiction of the court without permission.
• He must not threaten or pressurize the complainant and witnesses.

This decision reflects the court’s assessment of the prima facie evidence and the progress of the investigation, balancing the need to ensure the accused’s presence during trial with the principle of personal liberty.